About this Show

Tonight From Washington

News/Business. News.

NETWORK

DURATION
03:00:00

RATING

SCANNED IN
San Francisco, CA, USA

SOURCE
Comcast Cable

TUNER
Channel 100 (651 MHz)

VIDEO CODEC
mpeg2video

AUDIO CODEC
ac3

PIXEL WIDTH
704

PIXEL HEIGHT
480

TOPIC FREQUENCY

Mr. Murdoch 19, Us 17, Mr. Taylor 8, Rupert Murdoch 7, Clive Goodman 6, Mr. Davies 5, Mr. James Murdoch 5, Mr. Goodman 4, Mr. Sanders 4, Mr. Crone 3, Europe 3, John Chapman 3, Tom Crone 3, Rebekah Brooks 3, Chapman 2, Murdoch 2, Dhaka 2, Dillinger 2, James Murdock 2, Britain 2,
Borrow a DVD
of this show
  CSPAN    Tonight From Washington    News/Business. News.  

    July 19, 2011
    8:00 - 10:59pm EDT  

8:00pm
to africa
8:01pm
now, news corporation chairman and ceo rupert murdoch testifies before a parliamentary committee on the british phone hackings camel. he strained by his son, james who heads the news international his u.k. operation and rebecca brooks, a former chief executive of news international. the british media committee is chaired by john whittingdale. >> it was prepared on that basis
8:02pm
and we would like the opportunity to make that statement. the committee discussed the earlier. we do have a lot of questions and we hope it will come out during the course of questioning. if that is not the case he can make a statement. can we not have that, please? >> the statement in writing -- >> thank you mr. chairman could we please [inaudible]
8:03pm
>> [inaudible conversations] >> we will begin. good afternoon, everybody. this is a special meeting on the select committee. this is a follow-up to the inquiry which the committee held in 2009 on the privacy and level during which we took evidence on the extent of the phone hacking which had taken place. in our report last year we stated we thought it was inconceivable only one reporter had been involved. in the last few weeks it has emerged only evidence has come out which i think was indicated in the conclusion but also abuses revealed to the country is clear of the parliament being misled. we are very conscious of the committee that is an ongoing
8:04pm
police investigation and possible criminal proceedings to follow and this committee would not wish to jeopardize that. however, we are encouraged by the statements made by all the witnesses where they wish to cooperate with the committee and help us establish the truth. in the first witness cannot welcome the chairman of the chief executive officer of news corporation rupert murdoch down to the deputy officer and chairman and chief executive of news corporation international james murdoch, and i also thank you for making yourselves available to the committee this afternoon. >> thank you, mr. chairman. we are more than prepared to. >> i would start with mr. james murdoch. he made a statement on the seventh of july in which you stated that the paper had made statements that were wrong. qe essentially admitted the parliament had been misled on what we were told. can you tell us to what extent
8:05pm
were we misled when we became aware of that? >> mr. chairman, thank you. i would like to say how sorry i am and how sorry we are for particularly the victims of illegal voicemail deceptions and it's a matter of great regret and everyone at the news corporation and these are standards these actions do not live up to the standards that our company aspires to everywhere around the world and it's our determination to put things right, make sure these things don't happen again and to be the company that i know that it has always aspired to be as for my comments mr. chairman which i believe was around the closure of the news of the world newspaper. >> i would like to say.
8:06pm
>> stand closure of the world of the newspaper where i stated that the company hadn't been in possession of the fact certain statements were made in this committee was referring to the emergence of the new facts largely the end of 2010 and is the due process of the civil trials reached the point where dhaka and disclosure and evidence disclosure made it apparent to the company and myself at that time that indeed there was reason to believe potentially more people had been involved in the news of the world a legal voice mail interception from before. that was new evidence or information at the time that post dated the 2009 hearing. subsequent to the discovery of
8:07pm
that information in one of the civil trials of the end of 2010, which i believe was the sea and the miller case, the civil trial on the interception that the companies immediately went to look at additional records and the individuals involved. the company alerted the police who restarted on that basis the investigation that is now under way, and since then the company has admitted liability to victims of illegal voice interception, has apologized unreservedly which i repeat today to those victims and the company also set up a compensation scheme independently managed by a former high court judge to be able to deal with legitimate claims coming from victims' of those terrible incidents of the voice mail interception and those are the actions that were taken as soon as the new
8:08pm
evidence emerged. so when i made the statement about not being in the full possession of the fact, it was those facts at that point in the future and it was in the due process of that civil trial and the civil litigation process that that evidence really emerged and we acted and the company acted as swiftly and transparently as possible. >> when the committee took evidence in 2009, we heard from the editor, the legal manager of the news international, the news world editor, the former editor and the former chairman of the international. all of us were told there had been investigations and nobody else was involved. it's not correct. >> mr. chairman, the company
8:09pm
relied on three things for a period of time until the new evidence emerged. the company relied on a police investigation in 2007 and this is before the recount to take into effect that area this is before i was involved. i became involved in the news corporation and the news international at the end of 2007. in the 2007 period there was a police investigation successful prosecutions brought against to in the tools and the editor of the news world resigned. the company resigned of the police having closed the investigation and repeated there was no new evidence to open the investigation. somebody relied on the ipcc which had a report and said there is nothing new at the time and the company relied on the
8:10pm
legal opinion and related to those matters with respect to their review had issued a clear opinion for illegality other than the two individuals involved before. and the company relied on those facts and for the company in 2008 and 2009 and wasn't clear that there was a reason to believe that those members were anything other than federal matters in the past. >> the individuals gave up evidence in 2009 and none of them in iraq that time would have been going on. >> i do not have direct knowledge of what the new and at what time and the critical new facts as i saw them and the company emerged in the production of a documentary information or at the end of
8:11pm
2010, and the duration in 2008 or 2007 and to come clear to the evidence to be there is a matter of deep frustration mine i have to tell you and i sympathize the frustration of this committee it is a matter of regret the facts could not emerge to my understanding faster. >> he made clear it is the case the information we were given was being correct. something established as well as good man was involved in hacking. >> i'm sorry, mr. chairman? >> who else will was involved in the news world? >> i don't think you made it
8:12pm
clear earlier mr. chairman that there have been a number of arrests of former news of the world employees. these are matters for current criminal investigations and i think it is understandably a comment in particular a around some of those individuals. >> the investigation since the discovery of this information to find out the extent of the involvement in the hacking? >> we have established -- we've established a group and company cooperating very closely with the police on their investigation. their investigation is broad with respect to journalistic practices at the news of the world and the policy and the direction that the company has given them is to cooperate fully and transparently with the police to provide information and evidence that the company believes and they believe is
8:13pm
relevant to the investigations sometimes proactively and sometimes in response to the requests. and again, i think the very fact that the provision of the new information to the police in the first place when there was no police investigation ongoing that then fled to the reopening of the new investigation being established. i hope it can be a testament of some pro-active action and transparency with respect to getting to the right place in terms of finding out the fact what happened and understanding of the allegations that are coming in and moving forward to aid if the police in the successful completion of the serious work they are doing. islamic and the departure from your company in the recent today's of tom crane it's not because any of them acknowledge
8:14pm
the hacking. >> i have no knowledge, and if there is no evidence that i am aware of that mrs. brooks or any of those executives had knowledge of that and their assertions certainly mrs. brooks and her knowledge of those things has been clear. nonetheless those have been accepted, but it's important on the basis there is no evidence today that i have seen or have any knowledge of this there was any impropriety by them. >> the different, sir. you have repeatedly stated that news corporation has zero tolerance, is the right? >> yes.
8:15pm
>> october, 2010, did you still believe it to be true when you made your speech and said what may be clear, we were to vigorously pursue the trade we will not tolerate wrongdoing? >> yes. >> if you are not lining then, somebody was lobbying to you, who was it? >> i don't know. that is what the police are investigating. espinel but he acknowledged that you were misled? >> very. >> let's take you back to 2003. were you aware that in march rebekah to brooks gave information to the committee? >> i am now aware of that. i wasn't aware of the time. i was also aware that she amended that considerably quickly afterwards. >> i think she amended it seven or eight years afterwards. did you or anyone else at your organization investigate the set
8:16pm
time? >> no. >> can you explain why? >> i didn't have it. i'm sorry, i need to say something, and this is not as an excuse an explanation. news of the world is less than 1% of the company and i employ 53,000 people around the world who are proud and creed and ethical and distinguished people and i am watching and appointing people in my trust to run those positions. >> i do accept you have many distinguished people who work for your company and responsible for the news corps. what i am trying to establish is
8:17pm
the wrong doing and what was involved at the time. so if i can teach you forward to 2006 when good men was arrested of intercepting voice mails were you made aware of that? >> i was made aware of when they were convicted. >> and what did they do subsequent to the rest to get to the facts? >> we put in place for the investigations and eventually appointed frequently appointed a very leading a team of lawyers in the city to investigate. >> i will come to you in a minute, sir. let me finish my line of questioning what would you personally do to investigate that after mr. goodman went to prison?
8:18pm
you were obviously concerned about it. >> can i ask you why did you not dismiss the report following the moseley case? >> i had never heard of it. >> despite that set out for involved. a judge made it clear they settled a black male of the women involved in the case. so none of you have that in your attention for the serious wrongdoing even though the case received widespread media attention? >> i think there's more detail. >> despite the fact the black male can have authority year prison sentence, nobody in your
8:19pm
company brought this fact to your attention? >> blackmailed charge, no pity it is to make you think that might be because they would think nothing of it? >> no. i can't answer. i don't know. >> do you agree when he said the lack of action is a remarkable state of affairs? >> no. >> mr. murdoch, a judge found a chief reporter guilty of blackmail. it was widely reported. he said it was remarkable. >> it was a civil case. spec were you aware that news international commission did investigations on e-mails? >> was i aware that news
8:20pm
international commissioned an investigation into the news international e-mail, yes. >> you claimed in "the wall street journal" they made a major mistake. can i ask what mistakes were you referring to? >> i think maybe that is a question again to certainly we examined that an account things which we immediately had council with to get advice on how to present it to the police. >> in the written response to this committee's questions, are you aware that news international stated that both
8:21pm
john chapman review these e-mails before forwarding them to the news? >> no. >> plebeian the company told you that some of your executives reviewed the e-mails? >> everything had been sent to them. >> okay. since they reviewed the e-mail on behalf of news international, are you not? >> yes. >> you are aware they found evidence -- >> [inaudible] >> and you are aware that he stated he found evidence of the indirect breaches of national security and evidence of serious crime? >> some detail of you would allow me. >> it's your father who's responsible but i will come back
8:22pm
to you. >> who was aware of the findings of the international? >> certainly the top legal officer. >> they were not the top legal officers. >> who was the top legal officer? >> chapman at the news international and mr. crone with of the head of legal affairs of the news papers. >> by the findings of your son, mr. murdoch? >> i expect it was my son.
8:23pm
i was in daily contact with him. >> okay. when were you informed of the payment made to tayler and max clifford? >> no. >> you were not involved? at no point you knew that they were made payments? okay. from the chiefs executive of news corporation a payment of half a million -- i want you to tell me whether you inform your father that you had payments to the goldman taylor as a result of him being a victim of the crime. estimates of the settlement with mr. taylor, and i'm happy to address the matter of mr. taylor in some detail of you would like, my father became aware after the settlement was made in 2009i believe after the
8:24pm
confidential settlement had become public as the newspaper report on the subtle and afterwards, but please understand the settlement an out-of-court settlement of that nature and of that quantum is something that normally accompany our size and executives in the territory of the country would be authorized to make, and that's the way the company has functioned and it is below the approval threshold if you will that would have to go to my father's chief executive of a global company. >> server of your colleagues who asked specific questions so i will move back to your father if i can. mr. murdoch when did you find out the criminality was endemic of news world?
8:25pm
>> indymac is a very wide ranging word, and i have to be very careful with the justice that is taking place now. that has been disclosed. i became aware [inaudible] when i heard about them in any case of a receive. >> did you read the last report in m. nisha who gives evidence to the committee. >> i haven't heard that. stacks of parliamentary inquiry
8:26pm
had your senior executives in the u.k. guilty of? >> you're really not saying media. >> without your executives guilty of the collective amnesia. i would have thought someone would have liked to bring that to your attention. did they forget? >> no. >> okay. for most of the observers from the 2,009 that phone hacking was widespread. you knew for sure in january this year that the reporter was false, is the right?
8:27pm
>> why was edmondson the only person to? >> we have given all our files and knowledge and everything to the place. they have not given us so we do not know what was in there and there was a page, there was a period to be addressed and again this is [inaudible] >> mr. chairman, perhaps it would be helpful to the committee if he would like to go through any of the particular details on why the decisions were made by the management team of the news international and the precise chronology would be more helpful perhaps if i could answer those questions as the chief executive of the regional business across europe i have somewhat more proximity to it.
8:28pm
>> by a understand the detail plans. >> it is responsible and being brought about in the company would executive chose not to tell him so with respect to my line of questioning i will come back to you later. mr. murdoch, why was no one fired in april when news international finally admitted that news of the world had been engaged in criminal interception of voice mails? >> it was not our job to get in the criminal-justice. as of to the police to bring up those charges and carry out the investigation which we won hundred% cooperative. >> in april the country invested of liability for phone hacking and nobody took responsibility for it then. >> no one was fired. the aetna added that depend
8:29pm
involved in criminal wrongdoing and nobody was fired. why is that? >> there were people in the company who were guilty, and we had to find them and deal with them appropriately. >> if i can clarify, the individuals involved or implicate in the allegations that were there have long since left the company. so much that were still there you mentioned one exit of the business and as soon as the evidence of wrongdoing was from and the protest was set out in cooperation with the police to aid them with any of those things they wanted to do but many of the individuals that were potentially implicated in the civil litigations and potentially in the criminal matters had already left the building and were not in the news of the world at this time and current news of the world executives and journalists were not to their in 2006 and 2007 so
8:30pm
some have already left. >> mr. are not, why do you decide to list the jobs of 200 people before pointing the finger at the was responsible for running the company in the time? >> it is natural for people to lose their jobs. we had in this case continuing any effort for those people [inaudible] >> did you close because of the criminality? >> yes, ashamed of what had happened. stick people lie to you and
8:31pm
other readers. >> we had a broken trust with the leaders. the important parts [inaudible] >> were you aware there were other forms used by private investigators for the news international? >> other forms of -- to make illicit surveillance, computer hacking. >> i think all news organizations had moved the private detectives to do so in their investigation from time to time i think the legal. >> if it could be shown to you the private investigators working for newspapers in the news international the surveillance of the computer hacking would you immediately introduce another investigation
8:32pm
clacks >> we would certainly work with the police and if they want to do if they would do it. >> finally, can i ask when did you first meet mr. alex? >> [inaudible] i don't have any memory. >> okay. thank you. >> again, mr. murdoch senior can i ask you a number not short questions. when did you enter for the last general? >> because i was asked to. >> you were asked to run the back door number ten? >> yes. >> why would that be? >> to avoid -- i don't know, i
8:33pm
would imagine [inaudible] >> heads of state managed the front door [inaudible] >> yes. the church of the prime minister. >> it was under the prime minister's instructions you came in the back door cracks >> i was asked if i would please come in through the back door. >> if there was in the arrangement made for his entry or exit from a particular building. >> again, have you ever imposed any -- following the last election. >> to have a cup of tea to support mr. cameron no other
8:34pm
conversation took place. >> and that's when you went in through the back door? >> yes. i had been asked by mr. brown several times. >> through the back door? >> yes. [laughter] and my family many times. >> [inaudible] before giving them the support? >> i never guaranteed anyone support of our newspapers. we had been supporting the government come and we changed and supported whenever it was, 13 years ago with the 200,000 circulation. >> did you ever report any preconditions on the labor party?
8:35pm
>> no. of the only conversations i had with them i can remember were arrived at that euro. >> mr. blair who visited you -- it doesn't matter. >> [inaudible] >> can i also ask it was understood that the fbi are investigating have you commission investigation into these allegations? >> we have received no evidence of that at all and as far as we know -- >> that they do? >> they are treated exactly the same way as here, and i can't believe it happened to anyone in america as well as the news of the world.
8:36pm
i don't know. >> if these allegations are true the investigation into them? >> absolutely. >> also you must be qualified on the fact that its cost you and lead for the news of the world. >> trying to build this hysteria all our competitors in this country formerly announced to try to stop us.
8:37pm
>> i think it moved that. >> we have been very clear that serious allegations of wrongdoing had been leveled about the news of the world and we believe the news of the world, the actions of reporters and people some years ago have fundamentally tarnished and this is a matter of sincere mind, my father's and the companies. the company's priority very much so is to restore that trust, is to operate in the right way, to make sure that the company can be the company that has always aspired to be and the removal of the offer to make a proposal to make an offer to the
8:38pm
shareholders who are not news corporation simply the reflection of that purity of moving forward. >> do you understand the people who have been the victims on the allegations? >> is our absolute priority to lift those. >> what happened at the news of the world was wrong. the and i have apologized profusely for that and i thought i had as well. these are very, very serious matters, and we are trying to establish the facts of any allegations as they come up and we are working closely with the police to find out where they're wrong dillinger was and hold people accountable, and i think importantly as well to the victims of the illegal voice
8:39pm
mail interceptions not just that we apologize that we have to admit to the light of the become the company admittedly devotee and we've set out to the appropriate compensation schemes to do that. these are all matters that we are fully engaged in. >> do you accept ultimately? >> no. estimate your response? who is responsible? >> the people speak to the trusted. >> i would trust them with my life. >> are you satisfied of the corporation companies to inform
8:40pm
-- >> i don't know anything about that. >> if people were given of the money -- >> people were given money did you not find the appropriate -- >> all of our financial affairs of the public company are transparent and audited and the tax jurisdiction of the company works all around the world or worked transparently and thoroughly and it's an important priority for any business. >> would that include [inaudible] >> the company in their own
8:41pm
taxes i can speak for the company's and to the best of my knowledge we have a company that takes tax compliance for dillinger compliance, financial and regulatory transparency seriously and -- >> you are aware of the situation put out by the former miss led. your company [inaudible] why is that? >> i don't have direct knowledge of that. i apologize. but certainly if you have additional questions on that in the future i'm happy to supply written answers, but i don't have direct knowledge and i'm not in the position to answer
8:42pm
those questions. >> just a couple more questions mr. chairman. in the news corporation company is the subject of an investigation? >> i have no knowledge of that. i have no knowledge of that at this point. >> are there any news corporation companies of the subject of an investigation by the financial service? >> i don't believe so, not to my knowledge. >> finally, any news corporation company as the subject of an investigation? >> not to my knowledge. we have an ongoing relationship with subsidiaries here but as far as investigations i have no knowledge of one. >> thank you. >> mr. murdoch, you made a recommendation to the board of the news corporation -- you made the recommendation to close on the news of the world as a
8:43pm
decision made by news corporation? >> it was the result of a discussion between them and ali and senior executives and the board of the news corporation with to seek their agreement. >> you suggested is because he felt ashamed and not because it is a commercial decision for the news of the world? >> moving on to the financial government, you suggested earlier that up payment to mr. taylor were not notified of the level because of the finance threshold. could you tell a bit more about that? i understand it took you have to agree for the mr. payment. was that the financial level, the managerial decision? >> i'm very happy to discuss and it is a good question.
8:44pm
i'm very happy to discuss the matter of mr. taylor. with the adequate settlement with mr. taylor was related to a voice mail interception that had occurred previously and was actually one l.i.e. understand it of the 2007 trial. it's important to think back to 2002 understand what we knew then, what i knew then and what the information was in the context, so it's the underlining interception was not disputed fact. second, it was the advice, further, it was the advice and the clear view of the company that it's litigated that the company would lose that case that was almost certain to lose that case because the underlying fact was not in dispute. third, the companies saw the distinguished outside counsel to understand if the case were litigated and if it were to be
8:45pm
last which is the likelihood was the financial quantum would be or what that would cost the company with expenses, legal and expenses and damages and a million pounds or there about four the number of the advice i think it was 250,000 plus expenses plus litigation something like that. >> last, this is in the context of the first half of 2008, and this is my first real involvement with any of these issues where there was no reason at that time to believe that the issue of the interception was anything by the federal matter and was in the past after the successful prosecution of the two individuals as well as the resignation of the editor. so the settlement, the adequate settlement was made in that context and it was within the
8:46pm
authority is as i understood news international to be able to make those out of court settlements in due course without going to the global level company. i have the time of the regional head in the news corporation and i directed it was all right to settle that. we did not get involved in any of the negotiations directly about that settlement but i do recall in 2008 those are the things now. >> i would add my son had only been with the company for a matter of a very few weeks. >> i had to come back to the company at the end of 2007 in the middle of december, and i don't recall the exact date but this was somewhere in the first half of 2008. >> giving you were new to the
8:47pm
company, what financial payments could other news international executives sanction to people like tom crone or rebekah brooks? >> generally speaking, generally speaking of the way the company -- the way the company would operate and the we any company would operate as within certain financial parameters or planning perspectives. we will look at a budget like a house would manage its budget and say how much money do we have to spend in a particular company or part of the company or department has to spend as long as they stay within those guidelines, as long as they stay within those guidelines to believe that they should be empowered to make those judgments to, you know, spend the money and achieve the and if they can. i don't have it on the tip of my finger the precise financial authority, but i can discuss
8:48pm
after the committee hearing what exactly you would like to know and whether it is right to, you know, come back to that. >> what would it take, what level of the financial payout would it take to require those on the board of news corporation? >> i think for the full board is an the millions, but i don't know the exact answer to that. >> de know how much has been paid out to people by the executives? >> paid out in what way? >> paid out separately. stack of legal settlements? i do not know the total number. but are around the world it is customary to reach out of court settlements in civil litigation and civil matters, and it's something that rather than go through the lengthy and sometimes expensive litigation process it is a risk that often entails as customary to reach the adequate settlements in many
8:49pm
cases. >> i would add that we have a very sound committee in the corporation. which would [inaudible] outside directors. >> thank you. building on that how was it possible to make payments to people with the don't invoice you were not employed of the subsidiaries? >> i'm sorry? >> how was it possible to transfer funds to people who don't invoice you work or not employees? >> i don't know the exact arrangement of that. i don't do that myself, but i can tell you how that is done but sometimes in certain instances, you know, it is appropriate for journalists and managers an uncertain environment to have the ability to use cash in some instances but it is customary for them to
8:50pm
report those and all of the expenses as well as invoice expenses should be looked at and reported. >> things like petty cash. at the moment you don't necessarily -- you just recall the journalists gave it. >> i don't have direct knowledge of all of those arrangements. >> things could be made to family members of those. is it possible others can be used in the company apart from the cash like traveler's checks, vouchers, things used for cash? >> i don't have knowledge of that. >> just looking at some of your page two and page four of your own code it talks about the directors and employees and officers of the news corporation acting for the principle set forth.
8:51pm
including the investment partners and standards we've never asked a third party to violate the standards. can you tell me a little bit on the financial side of how you as an organization try to make that happen? >> how would work is each newspaper has an editorial manager that is they have to approve of the claims. and they have no authority and the managing editor's budgets and to do so restricted to do so with propriety. >> the executives make the statement they've provided.
8:52pm
>> every employee he come every colleagues around the world of the news corporation receives a code of conduct as a template that has some detail but it's not too much. with respect to what conduct is required -- it's about ethical conduct and breaking the rules and so on and everyone becomes an employee is required to do that and the legal counsel internally also conducts workshops around the world with a staff from mumbai to manchester to those rules and that conduct we try hard to communicate as critically as we can to everyone in the business.
8:53pm
>> did in the spotlight perhaps that is not appreciated the attention that you've had without wishing to suppress the journalism would this make you think again about how you approach your headlines that could be people from the hills of 96 to other celebrities or others you think again about what your headlines will say. >> i'm not aware of any transgressions as a matter of taste it's a very difficult issue we have in this country a wonderful variety of voices and their very competitive and i'm sure there are headlines
8:54pm
[inaudible] >> if you will from all of the support for us is that it is a business as well as an industry in this country more forcefully about the journalistic ethics about what exactly the code of conduct should be not just for the news international for the subsidiary but also for the industry as a whole and what sort of government should be around this whole area and we welcomed last week the prime minister's announcement of a judicial inquiry and with the journalistic ethics but also the relationships as i understand it the police and politicians and it's a really good thing for the country and all of the interested parties to engage
8:55pm
with and one of the actions we've taken to be as productive as we can around this as it's set up something we call the management standards committee located at the management of the publishing company and reports to the independent directors through the independent directors of our global public board precisely to look at this issue of around first the specific issues how we cooperate with investigations and a deal with allegations of wrongdoing and get to the bottom of it but also i think importantly how we coordinate and cooperate and productively engaged in the judicial inquiries and how we start to set a code of conduct and code of ethics that we think it is something that can be for all of the newspapers and all of the industry but also something that really has teeth and kim hold the company to account and is independently chaired the
8:56pm
standards committee, and we think it is going to be much better way to go in the future and we would like over the next six months to be judged on the actions the company takes to put that right. >> i would like to say if i made that our apologies for this country does have competitiveness and a very transparent society and that is sometimes a very inconvenient to people, and i think we are better and stronger for it. >> before i bring my next call we can i come back to the news rolled and ask is it your intention to launch --
8:57pm
>> no, there is no decision on that. >> for the moment there are no plans on the title coming out on the tabloid market. >> there are no immediate plans for that. >> they talk about newsroom with the speculation on the title to be reserved. >> i think we leave all those options open. that is not the company's priority now. in the last week it has come up in the company but my father's direction and my direction is to say this is not the time to be worrying about that. the company has to move forward on all these other actions and really get to grips with the facts of the allegations and understand them as fully as we can.
8:58pm
>> we still have quite a lot to get through. >> in your statement on the seventh of july, 2011, mr. james murdoch, you said the pay settlements approved but didn't have a complete picture. what do you know now why you didn't know then? >> the new information that emerged that is critical here is the information that came out of the ongoing process of civil litigation in 2010, and at the end of 2010 the presentation of evidence which hadn't been in our possession previously from this civil litigation that widened the circles definitively or made it very apparent that this is likely the circle was
8:59pm
wider than the two individuals mr. goodman and from previous it was that information the was critical, and if i can go back to my previous testimony just earlier today, around the settlement with mr. taylor, the commercial and legal rationality was very clear which was the underlying fact was not a dispute and a known fact from a previous trial the advice was very clear as to what sort of damage was expected to be paid, and it was quite clear and quite likely that it mitigated the company would lose that case. and in the context of none of this other information, this is a year before some of the new relegation a rose from afar, so this is -- there was no reason to believe that the time there
9:00pm
was anything than other than the past. now knowing then what i know now, what i still direct to negotiate to settle the case? i would actually, but i would have coupled it with the other actions that we have taken since the new evidence emerged at the end of september, 2010, and that is to immediately go and look at whatever we can find in turn a round of the individuals and to immediately contact the police about information of great interest to them to put in place the process that took a while and we did it in the early part of 2011 from admitting liability on the civil litigants bidding process in place to get to the bottom of what legitimate allegations there were. apologizing unreservedly to the victims of those illegal voice
9:01pm
mail interceptions which were absolutely inexcusable, and having a system of compensation. so, i think it's -- azo i knew then what we know now and as a benefit of hindsight we can look at all these things. but if i knew then what we know now it would have taken more action around that and more to get to the bottom of these obligations. ..
9:02pm
>> were you aware that case involved of the criminal act of phone hacking? >> is my understanding that that was the litigation for damages for the illegal voicemail. >> when did you get this device? >> in the first half of 2008. >> in 2009, mr. crone decided they would settle mr. taylor's plan that the companies they call it faces. >> i don't know precisely which external counsel been engaged on that -- the >> did you retrieve the advice whether it was crone or anyone
9:03pm
else? >> it was from mr. miler and mr. crone. >> psap goodbyes have been taken with respect to the quantum of damages that were expected. her advice was the case of the law. >> what damages were simply 50,000 pounds? >> mr. sanders, i did questioning out, but not in relation to the 60,000. if you recall, i'm sure you do come the chronology here come the settlement made with respect to the 60,000 pounds against the news of the world which i believe was after the authorization of the advice we saw her in senior distinguished outside counsels with respect to the quantum of damages that could be expected to pay him a witch damages term as a quarter of a million pounds plus expenses and expected to be
9:04pm
between 508,000 pounds anything the chronology is important. if or afterwards, you would obviously have different information. but it was enough to read. it was before. >> you could sense that when you're proved he did not actually have other facts. what do you know now that she didn't know then? >> as i testified in respectfully, mr. chairman, the key facts -- the key evidence that game tonight at the end of 2010 is the link the due process of the civil litigation involving matters to their cores, it was that process that unearthed the key evidence there and it was really only after that we should restart the investigation as soon as we have the new investigation. at the end of 2010 indicated to us there was wider involvement. we acted on it immediately.
9:05pm
>> halpin said last week he did not know why he left mr. newspapers. can you clarify why he was asked to leave after 26 years of service? >> well, last week the news of the world, mr. crone was involved over the years, but the company and in the management company believes that it was time to part ways. i was not involved in those discussions with mr. said condit crone. i don't have knowledge of them. >> a final question. the newspaper is carried stories date using international subsidized, coulson was waiting till you are unemployed. >> i have no knowledge of andy coulson wages after he left. >> are you familiar with the
9:06pm
term willful blindness? >> mr. sanders, do you care to elaborate? >> it is a legal term that states that could that could have happened should have had the responsible >> mr. sanders, do you have a question to >> i'm not aware of that particular phase. [inaudible] >> we were not ever guilty of that. >> thank you. >> i'm not sure you have knowledge -- the chairman said that we had our inquiry in 2009,
9:07pm
the evidence continues international executives was rather hopeless really. they came at the game plan. the game plan was to tell the tellers they didn't know anything. they couldn't remember anything and they didn't know anybody who would know anything. and i want to get off on a reasonable footing of who has advised you and how to handle the session and with her advice was? >> with respect today after scheduling this disappearance, we check -- we took some advice or a what the context of this evening. it's my first time in my fathers first time in a committee like this, mostly logistics and sober court of questions you've asked, but we were advised fundamentally to tell the truth. and to become as open as transparent as possible.
9:08pm
and that was my fondest intention and they hope we can show you that if it's happening. >> mr. murdoch, you can answer some questions for mr. watson seemed to indicate you had a rather involved approach to your company that i think the point you made was that in "the news of the world" was less than 1% of your entire worldwide business as though you couldn't really be good to know the ins and outs of a going on. could you just give a demonstration of how many times -- how often you speak to the editor of your newspapers, how often you speak to the editor and the news of the world. >> very seldom. sometimes i would coach the "the news of the world," but just to keep in touch.
9:09pm
i read "the sunday times" nearly every saturday, not to influence what he has to say at all. i'm very careful as to process the inquiry. and i'm not really attached. i know that most of the time this would be in the same building. but to say that we are hands-off is wrong. i cannot tell you the multitude of issues that i have to handle every day. >> i lost sight maybe because it was so small in the general
9:10pm
frame of our company, but were doing a lot of other things. >> if i can help you out here, if someone had told me you would speak something at least daily, which you recognize that description or would that be -- even have traditionally spoken that number of times? >> i'd like to. >> said the editor of the news is 94 publication, not to influence what they have to say. silly understand that. i am intrigued as to how the organizations go because i would've imagined it would go something on the line on anything to report, you know, anything interesting going on in the world says no, it sounded weak to keep it under
9:11pm
6000 pounds. surely some game as big as that, paints him in million pounds, 100,000 pounds, surely you would expect to be dropped into the conversation at some point. you wouldn't have expected them to say that? >> so if things like that went on the agenda -- sorry? what sort of response -- [inaudible]
9:12pm
>> genes, -- you may refer to -- >> he would tell you to do the same pound payout? >> he wouldn't tell me that if anyone was due. >> iconology in your view you overpaid, but i can't week to the to mr. clifford in those pieces in that piece, with respect to giving advice of counsel and the executives involved in going back while renewing 2008 in looking at that and remembering bad advice and looking at the context of the time to step back as two years, three years now.
9:13pm
it is a decision that given that context with the decision that i would still stand by a think. >> it seems like certainly -- >> apparently there was a contract with rupert murdoch that was canceled. >> i didn't know if you have knowledge of that. >> you were going on? >> it just seems strange to me -- we may come back with some details about that. but it seems to me the later -- the 600 pounds, the billion pounds for 600,000 or 500,000 or even 200,000 or even 50,000. he got 20,000. it seems bizarre that somebody
9:14pm
would get 20,000 somebody else gets fun hack to make it 600,000 or a million. and surely you can see that the difference that most people draw is one when it was all out in the open. it was to be kept quiet, 600,000. do not see the two people he cannot it smells fishy. >> mr. davies, and understand that this is 100,000, 200,000 from 600,000. that is a lot of money. you look and say why would a company do that? and i would go back to my answer to mr. sanders question, which was to be precise about the chronology here. mr. davies, i'd like to answer this question, but my
9:15pm
understanding is the 60,000 settlements in the judgments which was after it is an important chronology and that the courts and have set a differing standard here. and what we knew at the time was that i had distinguished counsel that if this case is litigated and if we were to lose the case, the company were to lose the case, what damages would we expect to pay? and the company received an answer that was substantial. >> at 60,000 to 600. >> it is important to be clear today. i apologize. it's important to declare the 600,000 or 700,000 included damages, legal fees and an
9:16pm
estimation of what it would've cost otherwise if the negotiation understands that. >> respectfully, is important because i agree there are big numbers. >> on the payments he made to your staff -- >> about the trial of glenn cordoning. clive goodman was pleading guilty. did news international pay his legal fees for his trial? >> i do want to be clear about the chronology first. i do not have firsthand knowledge of those times. remember that my involvement in these matters is starting in 2008 in the 2007 through december i was totally focused in my role as chief executive of the public and wasn't involved in this.
9:17pm
>> we say that it is customary with employees or with other litigations to pay some set of legal sense is on behalf of those to try to bring all of the evidence two quarts and settle in and that's all they've done in according since any involvement i've had in the knowledge according with legal advice about what the proper way to do things worse. >> i can't speak to the 2007 arrangements. i don't have first knowledge. >> clive goodman employed the services of john kelsey grant. he was fired to be similar to use international news. he's one of the most expensive lawyers in the country is sorted to go to lawyer for celebrities.
9:18pm
he seems to me that the journalists on "the news of the world" was pleading guilty here to a crime, used in mitigation, probably the most expensive lawyer in the country from which obvious he was hospitable to suspect that these legal fees for not being paid for by himself, but were being paid for by news international. now given and he was pleading guilty to a criminal act, fun hack income was presumedly leads to cross the conduct, was news international even dream about the legal fees engaged in criminal dignity? something that was clearly gross misconduct. >> mr. davies, i don't have any direct knowledge of the specific arrangements with mr. goodman in 2007, so i cannot answer the
9:19pm
specifics of that question. what i can say is that because i've asked the question as well, more recently with respect to the company pays, what contributions to legal fees remake, does the company make and so on and so forth? and i can tell you in asking the question, i have been surprised that the legal counsel is telling me that is customary here to sometimes make contributions of legal custody there could've been a a descendent of related matters and so on and so forth. i have no direct knowledge of that particular instance that you mentioned. if you have any additional specific questions about that, perhaps, mr. chairman we can follow-up with you on that and i'm happy to do that. >> it's all well. these are issues that go back sometime. i'm surprised you haven't followed up on them. >> was their right to clive
9:20pm
goodman did news international make any payments at all to does to people following their accomplished? >> at night to answer that question. upon nasty and their legal fees being paid after that time i asked myself the company had made certain contributions to legal settlement. there were legal fees around their nhs -- i was surprised. i was very surprised to find out that had occurred. they were done as i understand it in accordance with legal counsel and the strong advice. >> news international agreed to make it. you send the checks? who agreed to make those papers?
9:21pm
>> i do not know who. >> you talk about the managing editor. >> it would've been management to the legal cases i would think, but i think we have to -- i'm happy to go back and look at, but it was not something that came to my attention. >> it was certainly not come before or something to do with the managing editors. >> this but it's been our legal advice, payment on how to handle litigations. and again, i don't have direct knowledge or details on the current status of those, but i can tell you i was surprised as you are to find some of those arrangements have been made. >> mr. murdoch senior come i seem to be getting further review for which i'm grateful.
9:22pm
would he have agreed? >> it could have been. >> would've been her could could have been? >> who else could it have been? >> signing checks for approval. >> it would be on distractions to the chief executive officer. >> the management of the time it's a chief executive, mrs. kroc is the chief executive. >> you have to take a day every day after allegations were made about phone hacking. was that link?
9:23pm
did he resign? was the hack? would have been? how did he leave? >> that would have been for -- at the time, "the news of the world" matter. >> why did less hinton designed? >> he resign for sure last week around criticism for -- i feel i must down. >> were they asked to leave or did they ask post to leave? why did you not ask for
9:24pm
resignation when she first offered a quick >> i trester and i do trust her. >> wide? >> in the event she just insisted. she was a supreme english. >> can you tell us how much all of these characters have been paid off? how much have they been given as a financial settlement of news international? >> you know, i can't tell you. it is certainly be considerable of regular things. >> technically 5 million -- 10 million? >> those are confidential. >> is there any confidentiality and the payoffs that they're not supposed to speak about what happened where their time at
9:25pm
your company or what they know? >> mr. davies, the settlement compromise agreement that somebody resign where they do business in circumstances like this, you know, there are some -- there are commercial confidentiality agreement, but nothing that would stop or inhibit the executive strength cooperating fully with investigations are being transparent of any wrongdoing or anything like that. it's important to note that in these agreements they are made on the basis of no evidence of impropriety. and as evidence of impropriety marches, or was there prior to the departure you would have a different piece? that's quite an important point just to be clear. >> a final question is, it seems to be in the face of it that the use of the world was sabotaged
9:26pm
for the position that news international, that and the fact rather than her be departure in angst, the news of the world was offering alternatives to try to deal with the whole. do you regret making that decision and telling "the news of the world" to say we better -- in hindsight you we should accept the service in order that pay better would continue and know the people are now out of work were struggling to find a job could find were? >> i regret very much people who will not be able to find work. the two decisions are totally unrelated -- absolutely and totally unrelated. >> when you came into the u.k. instead your priority was with
9:27pm
crumbs. >> i'm not sure i said that. >> your miscoded? >> i'm not saying that. i just remember. >> i'm sorry, mr. chairman -- the closure of the newspaper with a history of 160 some odd years, history assab and that is a great thing and something that is a serious matter of regret for us, for the company, but much more serious amount is the seriousness of the violation of privacy, the hurt that certain individuals cause to the vet guns of illegal police my perceptions and their families and really -- i can tell you, you know, abdicated at the time that this is the step we should save. this is a paper and a title that it fundamentally violated the trust of his readers have sent
9:28pm
me in that was a matter of great regret, real gravity, but under the circumstances and with respect to the bad things that certain other things that happened at "the news of the world" years ago did, it was really the right choice for the paper to cease publication. now, it is important to note and i want to be clear with the committee on this, that the company is doing everything he can to make sure that journalists and staff at "the news of the world" who at nothing to do with these issues, who are completely blameless and many of these things and many have really done tremendous work journalistically, professionally , commercially for the business that we find the employment for them wherever we can and i think the company is being as generous as they can under the circumstances and being as thoughtful and
9:29pm
compassionate for them and their families to get through this. but it is a very regrettable situation and one that we did not take lightly and anyways. >> you have made that clear. going to ask the members. i don't want to cut anybody off, but please -- >> thank you, john. i just went to look at how john opened the session in connection with mr. davies question. there's one key question you need to ask. mr. murdoch, james, through civil action, you've been playing glenda passmore legally for your organization? >> others said earlier -- >> let's keep it short. yes or no question. >> i don't know the current status of those.
9:30pm
>> had he been paying legal fees during the course of the selections? >> at about the details of the selections, but i do know that certainly fees were paid by the company and i was surprised and shocked to learn that as you are. >> can you understand that people might ask why a company might wish to pay the legal fees of a convicted felon who has been completely evolved the destruction of your reputation? >> no, it's not. i can understand that and that's exactly what i asked the question. it's exactly what the allegations came out a saturday during this? is this what the company is doing? and on medical advice, you know, again, to want to be legalistic and i'm not a lawyer, but these are serious litigation support for all of the evidence to get to court at the right time and
9:31pm
the strong advice was from time to time is important in customary to pay codependence legal fees. and i have to rest on counsel's advice on some of the serious litigation matters. >> is the organization still looking for the coffee is quick >> as i said, i don't know the precise data for that now, but i do know that i asked for those things for the company to find a way, for those things to cease. >> what do you know? >> i'm happy to follow up with the committee on the status of those legal fees. >> this is a serious question. mr. murdoch senior, is it not time for the recommendation to say enough is enough? this phone hack that it's basically time for your organization to say he behaved
9:32pm
disgracefully. we're not going to pay any more than your cause. >> i would like to do that. i don't know the status of what were doing or indeed what his contract was and whether it still has any course. >> is the organization still paying fees? we still get the instruction? >> provided there's not a breach of the legal contract, yes. >> i just went to refer now to the question of statements for possession of the facts. during the two dozen inquiries, all the witnesses who came to us testified or been intimately involved in particular, a huge triode e-mails that seems over the past two days that dan rather quick to try and distance themselves from that investigation in the newspapers.
9:33pm
and stated was clearly that investigation was still a loan. can you tell us about the files e-mails, the third 10 boas discovers allegedly in the newspaper in the offices of harvard and burton? can you tell us about when that was covered, when he first came to know about it -- what is senate? >> i first came to know about that earlier this year and 2011. >> be more precise about the time. >> you got a great grasp of knowledge. >> it would've been around -- it would've been springtime. i do not remember the exact date i was told about it. >> it would have been april or may. and i can try to find the meeting schedules, but it was a few months ago.
9:34pm
and i can't speak i should say -- i can take a little bit to it, but has to the activity carried out in 2007, again, it pieces back together from the past. it is before any of a involvement, but the company at the time that you're referring to was a dismissal -- and unfair dismissal case that was brought by mr. goodman and that was the basis for conducting right around the time of the convictions on that period of time. >> despite the assurances of the other civilization. >> it was right at the time the code standards have been talked about before are the 2007 business was fair. and the investigation was done
9:35pm
were surrounded, but there was an outside counsel brought in. it was hartline and lewis by the company at the time and i understand the legal executives was mr. chapman at the time along with mr. byler who testified this effect and took a report from them and the opinion was clear that as to their review, there was no additional illegality with respect to phone acting in that file. and that was the opinion. and the company really rested on a number of things from then on. i certainly know in 2009 when additional allegations came in the summer, the come they would've rested on a handful of things. >> i just want to go read it today too but was discovered in the offices and when it was discovered. >> in 2010, after the civil litigation had put a spotlight
9:36pm
on their too vast, too the company, additional new evidence, new information that had in there before and the police investigation started off, one of the things that went back and looked at in the spring by senior people was that file in a whisper free look that. it was opened up and looked at and it was very rapidly brought to our attention that this was something -- >> when did this happen quick >> again, this is a pro, make a mature than that. >> who looked at these? >> on the side -- the people managing the work on behalf of news international from early this year would have been led by mr. lewis. that's correct. >> and what is in that file? it's been reported as a collection of 300 e-mails a
9:37pm
looseleaf? what is this? >> as you know, there's an on going criminal investigation and it could be wrong of me to talk about specific information or evidence that is subject and could make problems for the police in doing the important work that they are currently doing. >> if you please tell us e-mails, ring binder, looseleaf -- what is this? >> is paper. i mean, there were some documents -- >> i have not read it all, but something senate had been showed to me. >> what was her reaction? was their reaction used when you first read some of these e-mails? >> i try not to. >> but what do you do? >> my reaction immediately was to agree with the recommendation
9:38pm
of the executives involved and bring to the attention of the police with respect to their ongoing investigations or perhaps new ones. >> when was it given to the reporters? >> i believe is in june after we informed the board of the company as well. >> i believe it was june, yes. >> "the news of the world," great newspaper paints the picture on the 10th of july from this file from gatekeepers to name them as alex moran checked, greatness due, clive goodman, james weber. do you recognize some very from the file teshuvah look at? >> respectfully, i would ask you to please understand the detailed questions that any of the evidence, information we've
9:39pm
tested the police in relation to their ongoing criminal inquiries are difficult for me to answer and i would appreciate it if we could allow the police to undergo the important work that they are undergoing. there is a process that is important. we are cooperating with it, providing information on a regular basis as needed by the police are they really believe that we have to allow the police to conduct their investigation and hold the people who did wrong to account in this area. >> all respect that. >> if i could comment on anything, it could result in people. >> i will respect that the descriptions of the press that actually on the record, including they do mention the
9:40pm
e-mails, but i wouldn't expect you to comment on that. i will now just turn to the latter that is provided to us by rebekah brooks as evidenced during inquiry that this will produce nothing more. that letter comes from the sun partner i mentioned the e-mails being reviewed by the coulson, admit them, delete friedman, joel stenson and nothing had come to light in that review that would contradict duty to the report of working. knowing what you know now, from what was discovered, have you
9:41pm
looked back in detail at the basis on which they wrote that and why they gave such a clean bill of health. >> all i can say is that having direct to -- how they look at some of the things and not in the advice of the senior people inside, the company more recently went and looked at that with the view of the company self-evidently that it was right to bring it to the attention of the police and then go forward. and that opinion from the council was something that the company, you know, rested on. it was a clear opinion about a review done about those records and in addition, in conjunction with the police continued to say there was no new evidence and no reason to open a new investigation in conjunction
9:42pm
with the pcc, saying they had done their review and done their inquiry and there is nothing new there, that was a subtle matter. it was only really when new evidence emerged that those 30 things begin to be under march. >> in the fall of to the recession, do she complied with the information given to the totality of information in much more detail to include >> if there's additional detail required around legal instructions, we will come back with a way to satisfy you with information that she'd like to have. >> clearly, we started in a report that this view coincided not so much with the arrival, but the timing of the industrial tribunal actions that clive goodman picked the question of why the six individuals who name
9:43pm
that. do you know why it was the six individuals? >> i don't know. i wasn't there at the time and i can't say the circumstances, conversations that people had in the terms of reference of that, but it was viewed as something that would be -- it had to be after-the-fact but that was coming in now, had been a fair outlook that information based on that review >> and hate site, you can say -- we can all say if somebody would look at us for something that wasn't known yet at the time, but i can't comment on why this group was what it was.
9:44pm
>> the criminal convictions, clearly were saddled and therefore we don't know what they were planning to serve. you know these allegations they were making? we can only imagine such and such. >> i think many of these individuals you mention are currently subject to criminal investigation. some have been arrested recently. these are important matters and i do think it's important that i don't stray into commenting specifically about individuals or allegations. >> do you satisfy yourself as to what clive goodman was alleging in discussions and negotiations that led up to the sentiment that bought tribunal proceedings against them. have you satisfied yourself?
9:45pm
>> i am not aware of allegations at the time. a nasty goodman come again in 2000 for every spare, it is manders handing that is what harper and lewis were helping to do with them that opinion to satisfy the current me and the company arrested on that opinion for a period of time. >> i think you'd like to take the opportunity to resolve this matter as an accurate portrayal of what went on. >> i think it is something -- i'm glad you asked because it is a key bit of outside legal advice and senior counsel that was provided to the company that he rested on. i think it goes some distance in explaining actually why it has taken a lot of time for new information -- they think it's important -- it was one of the
9:46pm
bases for which people sort of push back the company made against new allegations. it was one of the pillars of the environment around the plays that led the company to believe that all of these things were not of the past in new allegations -- >> a question about the difference, mr. murdoch. there is evidence given to this committee and there is not one reason about criminal investigation. would you like to withdraw? >> respectfully, i am not aware of the legal technicalities of withdrawing that were submitted on the record. i think it is a relevant document in trying to understand how international was thinking at the time. i would say no, but i can come back after taking counsel and see this a better idea to do it. >> i want to know what i was a given time, but her humor questions.
9:47pm
as you described, the e-mail investigation was carried out and overseen by joan chatman and the human resource her. is that your understanding? >> pardon me, what is the question? >> you described to us as it is carried out by the i.t. department and overseen by the director of legal affairs, john chapman and the human resources personnel direct your -- >> that is my understanding. >> can you tell us a john chat and has left the organization? >> john chapman and the organization decided it was a mutual interest to part ways and i think one of the pieces here as well as for -- and i think
9:48pm
this is important. many of the individuals, even if there is no of wrongdoing or anything like that, no evidence of impropriety come in many individuals have chosen that it's time to part ways. >> i was not involved with the discussion. >> the file that is do they -- >> i do not have that. >> mr. crone left the company some time ago. he was the direct duress human resources. i am not sure, but he left every year or ago i think. i can follow up to him status. >> quickly to the witnesses that came to us, again, in respect of the file that you discovered
9:49pm
this year, regarding sub six, when did he become aware of these e-mails and papers? clearly when did the evidence -- >> i cannot speak to mr. hinton's knowledge. are you referring to 2011? >> this techno/-- >> in 2007 -- i can't speak to his knowledge, but i would -- i know that mr. hinton was aware of the work that had been carried out in a out in a think he is testified to this committee to the effect. >> had the last end? mr. burdick, have you asked him whether he knew? >> no. >> why not? >> which documentary talking
9:50pm
about? >> you discovered april, may-- >> i don't think it, it you know, i have not asked him, but he also think that he is testified that is the chief executive at that time would not have been asked acted necessarily to read x hundreds or thousands of e-mails they are, but would rely on the opinion of counsel about what they've done. >> i cannot speak to other individuals knowledge in the past. i simply don't -- i simply can't speak for them. >> that's the german pronunciation, sorry. >> saying goes. i can't speak. >> rebecca brooks. >> i simply cannot speak for
9:51pm
mrs. dirks when she was chief executive is one of the people who brought it may attention is a new thing. >> let me offer this questioning. i'm going to wrap up, but we have left now with a situation where you come having looked into this affair, having cooperated with police cannot tell us who launched the file, who was aware of its contents in who kept to you from being in full possession of the bank, evidence that clearly contradicts any assurance we were given not in one, but two committees with the inquiries. that's unsatisfactory. >> i can say that the company at the time engaged in an outside
9:52pm
law firm to review a number of these e-mails are provided to the law firm as i understand it. they reviewed an opinion piece to the company of a respected -- the opinion was clear in the company on that. i cannot speak to individuals knowledge of different times because they simply don't know. what i do know is the company rested on not coming rested on the fact the police told us there was no new evidence or reason for new investigation of rested on the opinion that there is no new information and no reason to carry further. and it wasn't until new evidence emerged from the civil trial, civil litigation going on that the company immediate the went to the police, restarted the. in the company has done the right wing. >> this was line in your session all the time.
9:53pm
it's not simply the litigation. mr. murdoch -- >> i'm sorry, may i? >> yes. the select data in connection with the new would be started terminal investigation. these are serious matters and we take them serious. when it them serious. when it them serious. when it and was deemed these things we immediately brought in additional counsel, lord mcdonald who i believed you mentioned earlier to help advise the company and with the appropriate way forward in terms of full transparency cooperation with these investigations were. they're very serious matters in the company took them very seriously. >> just two questions. >> the situation, where we are now here, not knowing what these
9:54pm
international news of the world was consistent in keeping that file containing having the newspaper and when we knew about that file, evidence clearly contrary, not only comes of that evidence it would appear that his leg your trusty date over many years. to find that satisfied jury to stage the defense? >> now, i do not. >> what you think the company should do for the involvement? >> well, mr. chapman has left us he told mr. lewis that we
9:55pm
immediately signed the leaflet vice to go to police the case and how we should present it. >> with the lawyers, with the law firm would've had a reason to go in real academy. again, dpu is very, very clear based on the review that that was done and as soon as there was a new criminal investigation, it is deemed appropriate and immediately donned. >> u.k. press the point. my final question, mr. murdoch, given the picture that's being painted of individuals on the new stack, asking for private investigator, do you think it's possible at all at the editor of your newspaper would not have known about these activities? do you think that's at all
9:56pm
possible? >> i can't say that. i presume coming judicial proceedings, that's how i can tell you, except it was my understanding that should better not say, but mr. miler, appointed by mr. hanssen didn't know what was going on and he commissioned not inquiry. now, that is my understanding of it. i cannot swear to the accuracy of it. >> thank you. we've been going for two hours now. >> what we'd like to know i'm
9:57pm
very familiar could you paint a picture of the week's operation? were. were you closely involved? >> my involvement was overseen the region of europe in a shed, just to be clear in 2008, starting as chief executive for europe in a shack in the european television business can the u.k. publishing business. one title of which is the news of the world. so i can't say that i was ever intimately involved with the workings of the news of the world. >> what results come to you with the application? did you expect we are a week?
9:58pm
i know that rupert was murdoch was far removed. >> i mean, these are enterprises , sales and advertising figures and personnel numbers and all of those things are relevant. managers look at those things. >> are we have some questions that have been answered already, that when it comes to legal issues of a trend, but that is taken outside of the management each group of companies have their of companies have their something doesn't go into the paper that's going to be wrong, et cetera. it's right and then something doesn't go into the paper that's going to be wrong, et cetera. it's right and then it's wrong. they each had their legal
9:59pm
resources and were very involved as well as the counsel's office in the newspapers. >> so, the editor -- >> the typical weeks, every day in munich, all day in italia, we had a very particularly difficult situation, a particularly tricky impairment. >> became clear from the first couple of questions that you've been kept in the dark quite a bit on some of these instances. ..
10:00pm
and large companies the management of which is delegated to managers of different companies within the group and so on and so forth, and i think that my father or myself is different than the management of running of these businesses up and delicate and often to the chief expected of a different company or an editor or managing editor and decision making has
10:01pm
to be there. there are thresholds, materiality if you will, things have to move upstream and brought to the attention from a financial threshold point of view i think we addressed that earlier with settlement, an out-of-court settlement with mr. taylor but also from the standpoint of things like alleged criminality in violation of our zero own of code of conduct and the internal audit function as well last the audit committee and the senior executive of the committee are expecting to be made aware of as they were in the case of the criminal prosecutions in 2007. >> but, you know, as what of your efforts were made, you know, we reached dhaka crisis --
10:02pm
who do you hold responsible for that failure? >> you are saying people should have told you, you are saying not that they should have told you but [inaudible] >> i think it's not to say -- i'm not saying somebody that should have told me to my knowledge certain things were not known, and when the information came to light especially with my knowledge of these events and the understanding of a new information came to light the company acted on it in the right and proper way as the company could, but it's difficult to say that the company should have been told something if it isn't known it was a known fact to be told. now, i've been asked today about when and i can only act on what they've told me or what they've
10:03pm
told you in the previous hearings, and i know -- i understand completely your frustration about this. you can imagine my own frustration in 2010 when the civil litigation came to the point of these things were out, and suddenly realized that actually the pushback or the denial of the veracity of allegations that had been made earlier particularly in 2009 had been too strong, and that's a matter of regret because all the facts were not known when that was done, and that is a matter of deep regret, and it's why we are here today trying to be as transparent as we possibly can. >> this is a rhetorical question because [inaudible] the fact such employees over the
10:04pm
years and mr. rupert with these to look after rebekah but there was another criticism that the time in the financial crisis that it was nepotism in retrospect i know the answer but do you regret -- to you regret that it has become [inaudible] >> the agreement including my
10:05pm
son not just their committees but outside has made the conclusion that he was the right person. the president doesn't feel that. when he left to go to why promote him to go take charge of much wider responsibilities we had calls from many who said it was a terrible thing to take him away because he does such a great job. >> the ability, the fact you didn't know many about so many of these that went on if that is made more likely because of the founding history i'm talking about people that were members
10:06pm
and became friends. you don't think that -- >> i don't think for a minute speech [inaudible] he certainly did not know of anything. >> before i address my questions i want to make sure as previously declared to the committee that my wife is an employee of the corporation and never worked on the campaign i just want to share that to you before any questions. you said early on the society do think it's right people can expect the society on that?
10:07pm
>> no. >> where do you think the limits of that flight? in the investigations for example, banking records were used one of the witnesses were relevant to their investigation. what extent do you think the use of confidential, private information using records and hacking is permissible in the news story? >> i do believe that investigative journalism is competitive and goes to an open and transparent society as that may be too many people, and i think we are a better society because of it. we impose more on the society than even the united states. >> where do you draw the line on that? what boundaries --
10:08pm
>> we thought it would have been a terrible outcry when, i'm sorry to say this and i don't know the circumstances anyone else around here but when there's a series of stolen documents of the expenses of of course a huge outcry none of which i think has been properly addressed. we ought to look at the most open society in the world, singapore, where there million dollars a year and the prime minister a lot more and there's no temptation and it is the cleanest society and find anywhere. >> [inaudible] [laughter] >> i mean that seriously.
10:09pm
it is ridiculous. >> may i add it's a good question and a really important question, and i understand it's going to be one of the subjects of the judicial inquiry which the prime minister announced last week, which as a company who immediately welcomed, it's a question of public interest, the question of what is acceptable and what isn't in terms of investigative techniques is an important one but let me be clear the conduct of news corps globally for our employees and journalists who are otherwise very clear that breaking the law is a very serious matter and should be people who are lawbreakers brought to account, and the matter of something like phone hacking or payments and things like that, we just don't think they should have anyplace in our business. >> so you would be very clear that within your company, organization, they should have
10:10pm
been aware [inaudible] >> i think after -- i think after the -- particularly in light of the successful prosecutions and convictions of the individuals involved in 2007 could not be taken more seriously, and if new evidence emerges, and has it has in cases, the company acts on that very quickly. >> to what do you think a -- organization people tell you things they think you ought to hear and people that have been trusted advisers over the years with olden formation -- withhold information? >> not my best advisers, certainly. you should hear the conversations that come into my office over time. >> [inaudible] >> some crazy ideas brought against me.
10:11pm
>> we are a very big company. i'm sure there may be people you've heard of, that would be human nature and it's up to me to see through that. >> there is pressure on senior managers to get the teams to react to each other and in the organization that leads them to take risk and clearly in the case of news of the world push boundaries of the law. >> i'm sorry? >> there was a pressure on editors who take risks in the news of the world and the action of wrongdoing. >> i think it's terribly wrong. there's no institution affecting law at any time.
10:12pm
i think they talk all newspapers when they reached a campaign. >> to further questions. >> i just want to say i was brought up by a father who was not rich but was a great journalist, and he, just before he died of wrote a paper specifically for the chance to do good, and he did what was most proud of which he was hit in this country for many, many years was to was to expose the scandal of the delivery which i remain very, very proud of. [inaudible] question of a family business.
10:13pm
i would love to see my sons and daughters follow if they are interested. >> rupert murdoch, use it to have had meetings with friends in your career it appears after -- >> [inaudible] >> well, you said you were aware? >> i was aware of the situation and in the aftermath of there were reports and investigations in the committee which a lot about them today. did any senior politicians you were in contact with at the time raised the concerns about phone hacking -- >> with mr. brown and friendships and together on many
10:14pm
occasions. and i'm very sorry that no longer -- i have great values i shared with him and i hope one day we will be able to get her again. >> use it for "the wall street journal" you fall to the news corporation had responded very well and do you stand by that statement or do you believe the level? >> i see it now it had been a crisis. [inaudible] i'm sorry. [laughter] i don't believe that either he
10:15pm
made any great mistakes, but mistakes made within the organization, absolutely with what they tested, yes. >> to james murdock, it was reported the aspect to start when the news of the world closing was made that the understand why they had to close. for the comment what do you think the significance of that period of time was? are you expecting to be more that will come out in the news world? >> i don't. i can't speak to what you specifically are referring to. she made those comments herself and as when she was saying goodbye to the staff, but all i
10:16pm
can say that what happened at the news of the world and the events leading up to 2007 and prosecution what we know about those things now more that and things that should not have a place in our organization. i think that we unreservedly and really sincerely am sorry for. we haven't seen the end of this in the ongoing police investigations that are there. as you know, mr. collins, there are a number of people who've been arrested. we don't know what's going to happen in the future around those things. even the breach of trust given the allegations that were emerging at a rapid pace. it was clear to me any way, and i think the future would bear this out, with only specific knowledge of the future i would say, that it was the right thing
10:17pm
to sort of pay for these. >> you had acted as fast as he could come at the moment he could? does that suggest you hold back any point of view in the last few weeks? >> as i said to the committee earlier i can't remember which of my apologies, but mr. collins, they're has been a frustrating process and actually life for restoration or my real anger to learn that there was new evidence emerging as late as the end of 2010 was and is real, and what i've done and what the company is trying to do is take new information, adjust the course, be a force propriety and quickly, the haven i humble way with respect to what has happened and with trying to really put it right to me and that is what we are trying to
10:18pm
do. it was enormously frustrating and does not mean i have any knowledge of anyone intentionally misleading the in the company. i don't, which makes it doubly frustrating that it is -- we are where we are. new information and lurched through the legitimate process of the trial and the company acted on it as fast as could possibly be expected and it's still new information were allegations emerging. that, you know, the company and we are trying to deal with iran as right as a way as we can and in the best way possible. >> the good news is i'm the last questioner and her specific questions i would like to ask you to read starting with you, mr. james murdoch i've read the differences in the settlement zipf hawken can you tell me
10:19pm
whether or not this included the confidentiality clause and others did not? [inaudible] >> we just saw rupert murdoch being confronted by a protester who tried to hit mr. murdoch with a plate of shaving cream. the chairman recessed the hearing, the cameras were shut off and the protester was arrested. after a short break the committee returned. >> both of you have been very cooperative to this committee and i appreciate you have answered questions for a long time and i would like to apologize on behalf of the committee and i will make a report to show you we will take action. it's extremely good of you to
10:20pm
agree to continue the session and allow my colleague to finish questions. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. >> discussing your initial appearance i said that we should start from leadership today and i must say i think it shows ghats to continue answering questions now on the circumstances and i thank you. my questions will be just as tough as they would have been. mr. james murdoch if i can take you back before they interrupted the question between the settlements. could you please tell me whether or not the total settlement to your knowledge involving confidential sleeper walz that wasn't in the settlement for the latter months? >> i can tell you that the tayler settlement was a confidential settlement and that to other settlements posted but
10:21pm
more recent settlement, some have been confidential and some -- and don't believe them confidential settlements but i can certainly follow up as to whether there has been. it's customary in in an out-of-court settlement for both sides, both parties to agree that there's nothing unusual about an out-of-court settlement being made confidential and it was. with respect to i think the basis of the question which is the disparity and the amount of money involved it was nothing in the tayler settlement of what respect to the confidentiality that spoke to the amount of money. the amount of money was derided as i testified earlier from a judgment made about the likely damages would be and the likely expense in the litigation would have been had the company taken the litigation to expand the loss.
10:22pm
it could be drawn of the larger settlements of confidentiality clause did not and that is the point you say about it being a pragmatic decision based on the cost to the company and it could be brought by the conscience of called clauson the solnit. estimate and above would be false. >> many people and we find it quite hard to believe that the two executives result this passage of such knowledge of widespread at one of your flag shift papers. can i ask you very specifically, mr. james murdoch first, when did you become aware that not merely the celebrity some but the victims of crime, when did you become aware?
10:23pm
>> a terrible instance around the case only came to my attention when i was reported in the press a few weeks ago. and a total shock that was the first i had heard of it and became aware of it. >> is that the same as the other victims of crime? in other words have you been made aware prior to the story breaking that your reporters had any other crime victims? >> no, i have not been made aware of that to the extent and just for the record issued earlier you would be aware it is a very likely interest. it is apparently alleged that you spoke toggling u.s. soil. given the delegation you are
10:24pm
absolutely confident no employee he or contractor of any others hacked the phone of 9/11 victims or their families? >> we don't represent that at all. >> in the allegation that you had -- >> i was just going to see -- sorry. i was just going to say that those are incredibly serious obligations and they've come to light very recently. we do not know the veracity of those allegations and are trying to understand what they are and any investigations. i remember well as all of us do that the september 11 attacks i was in the far east living there a time and it is just appalling to think that anyone associated with one of our papers would have done something like that. i am aware of no evidence about that. i am well aware of the
10:25pm
allegations and will eagerly go operate -- cooperate with any investigation or try to find out what went on at that time. these are very, very new allegations come as the few days old i think. this very serious allegations, and that sort of activity would have absolutely no place. it would be appalling. >> i noted to mr rupert murdoch and exchange was somewhat more nuanced. have you received any information that gives you cause for concern that employees of news corporation or contract it may have indulged in that? >> no, we've only seen the allegations that have been made in the press or something like that. and we are actively we would like to know to understand that.
10:26pm
>> [inaudible] thank you curious but definitely not. >> and have you come as a result of the review a shock to people of culture have you heard from any of your employees in other countries that phone hacking may have been happening in any territory where news corporation owns media property, are you doing the global review and have you heard of any allegation the territories? >> i am not aware of any allegations. i haven't heard of those obligations, but i would go back to the code of ethics and a code of conduct in all of our colleagues at news corporation globally with a journalist or management are required to have when they joined the company briefed on those things it is a matter of real seriousness the journalistic ethics of any of the newspapers or television
10:27pm
channels within the group, and certainly we want to be consistent, we want to be doing the right things, and when i say that illegal behavior has no place in this company that goes to the whole company. >> mr. murdoch or the executive of news corporation and the head of the global company. given these allegations that you have said it was the most humiliating day of your life, given the -- i'm sorry. humble. the most humble day of your life you be field humbled by the seasons and are ultimately in charge of the company. given your shock at these things being laid out before you and you didn't know anything about them had instructed your editors are now the world to engage in a review of their own to show this isn't being represented in other papers around the globe? and if not, will you do so?
10:28pm
>> no, look but happy to do so. >> one final question or two final questions. he touched earlier, mr. james murdock, on the journal culture of phone hacking and that has in the past happened in this country. if i could just put a couple of things to you he's now a celebrity on cnn and ask him any questions at all about phone hacking case says in his book and by quote a trick of entering the standard code allows anyone to call one on the messages in that book that enabled him on a story but as a former editor about his personal use of phone
10:29pm
hacking, yes, the day is part in the news about the story that happened of the daily mirror. the associated committee of the parliament in my view that the daily mail had these times in history run the story phone hacking in any way and the operation which can you come james murdock, will have made you aware that daily mail had journalists. pieces of information obtained by the private investigator in these shall we say unorthodox methods. you said earlier, mr. murdoch, that to come before this committee told you to simply tell the truth, which i think was excellent advice. is it not the fact, not the truth of the matter that journalists at the daily mail
10:30pm
and the news of the world felt entitled to go out there and use the reception and a phone hacking because that is part of the general culture of corruption in the british tabloid press and that they didn't kick it out to change because they felt you were in title to use the same bet it. isn't that that in fact of the matter? >> i am aware of those reports, the questions are on the other newspapers and their use of the private investigators, but i think really all i can really speak to in this matter is that he tears and the culture of the news of the world as we understand it and how we are trying to find out what happened in the period in question but also i think importantly it's not for me here today to impugn other newspapers, other journalists, things like that.
10:31pm
>> well on the news of the world to engage in these legal practices particularly phone hacking because it also was in the british tabloid journalism do they not see it as it was because -- >> i don't expect that if a journalist on one of our papers or a television channel or internet news operation feels they don't have to hold themselves to be higher standard i think it's important that we don't say listen everybody was doing it and that's why people are doing it. at the end of the day we have to have a set of standards that we believe in and we have to have titles and journalists to operate in the highest possible standard and we have to make sure that when they don't live up to that that they are held to account, and so that is really the focus for us. >> how to consider this?
10:32pm
the investigations for the journal of you rely on the investigator by the police commission -- carries documents sound there's an old saying if you want something you should do it yourself and this relies on the investigations. >> i think any future legal claims were actions in any manner is a manner for the future that's not this really today is about how we actually make sure that these things don't happen again. >> i won't comment or speculate on any of the future matters.
10:33pm
>> by my colleague you asked if you read it yourself and you said no. under the circumstances where you rely on the people and they severely let your company down do you not think that perhaps you and you mr. murdoch would take the time -- >> for clarity on did say that i did read some of the content of that and what i saw was sufficient to note the right thing to do was hand things over to the authorities. >> do you not think that an example which can be tricky under the circumstances and enormous juncture would be the first down and news corporation to you not think that the executives of the company should take to the entire file what happened? >> i am happy to do so -- >> my last question is for you, mr. rupert murdoch.
10:34pm
you said that it led to step down and have resigned because he was in charge of the company at the other time and therefore he resigned. is it not the case that you are the captain of the ship? you are the chief executive officer of news corporation and -- isn't the cure in charge of it and as you sit in earlier questions to handle 12 hours a day. this terrible thing happened on your watch. >> no. >> why not? >> because i feel that people like trusted let me down, and i think's the behavior persuasively to trade the companies and me, and i think
10:35pm
that the best person for this. >> thank you mr. murdoch. i very much appreciate your courage and having seen this despite what just happened. thank you. >> thank you. >> i would like a very brief -- >> when nicu signed off the payment, did you see or were you made aware of the transcript? >> no, i was not aware of that time. >> an astronomical staff and every reason to settle the case given the likelihood of using the case and the damages of the
10:36pm
council or prepared to release their obligation to the confidentiality so that we can get those. >> i cannot comment on the matter. i was not involved in that matter. as for the tayler matter, it is a confidential agreement. i don't think it's worth exploring how difficult. >> this case helps us get to the truth to an obligation he would be an online to be released. >> the hypothetical scenario i'm happy to respond about what specifically more you would like to know about the settlement in the testimony that i've given you today. [inaudible]
10:37pm
>> we have respect mr. murdoch to what do we owe this [inaudible] >> mr. murdoch i know you did ask if you could make a closing statement and the committee would be for deutsch to do so. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and members of the committee. i would like to read a short statement now. my son and i came here with great respect for all of you, the parliament and people of britain you represent. this is the most humble day of my career. and all that has happened i know that we needed to be here today. james and i would like to see how sorry we are for what has happened especially with regard to people's crime. >> our company has 52,000, i
10:38pm
fled for 57 years and i've made my share of mistakes many countries and hard-working journalists. i learned that nearly 200 newspapers come for different sizes and countless stories of the families of the world at no time do i remember being as second as when the family had to endure which i think his last. nor do i have recall things as angry as when i was told that the news of the world could have compounded their distress. i want to thank keefer graciously giving me the opportunity to apologize in person. i would like all the victims of the phone hacking to know how completely and deeply sorry i
10:39pm
am. apologizing cannot take place with his happened but still, i want them to know my regret of the horrible invasions' of their lives. i understand and intended to work tirelessly and the forgiveness. the understand the responsibility to the corporate as well as the future increase. we now know they went badly wrong at the news of the world. for the newspaper account that came to itself behavior occurred against everything that i stand for and my son, too. and not only have they portrayed the readers and in the many thousands of significant professionals in other decisions have i come around the world.
10:40pm
so let me be clear that invading people's privacy by listening to their voice mail was wrong. paying them information is wrong and that emphasis with conduct not as anyplace in any part of the company that i run. the same story is not enough. things are to be put right. no excuses. this is why news international was cooperating fully with the police, whose job it is to see that justice is done. it is our duty not to prejudice the outcome of the process. i'm sure the committee will understand this. i wish we had managed to resolve these problems much earlier. in 2007i thought this matter had
10:41pm
been separate, and i was told news international conducted an internal review had been confident when james joined the news corporation he brought the case, too he read these are subjects we will no doubt loose. and have explored today. this has given me and our companies and employees many opportunities. i am grateful from them and i hope our contribution to britain but when they also be. above all, i hope we will come to understand of the past and present them from happening again. and in the years ahead, we are still the nation's trust in our company and all the great journalism. i'm committed to do everything in my power to make this happen.
10:42pm
thank you. >> thank you. can i on behalf of the committee think you for giving so much of your time to come here and i would like to apologize again. >> thank you, mr. schramm. >> the committee will now have a break for five minutes. >> [inaudible conversations] >> the former head of rupert murdoch's's newspapers rebekah brooks was arrested sunday in the phone hacking investigation
10:43pm
british prime minister now former news international's chief executive rebekah brooks testifies about the phone hacking and police bribery investigation.
10:44pm
ms. brooks also served as an editor of the now closed news of the world. she was called before the british media culture sport committee which is chaired by john whittingdale. >> we have now come to the second part of the session and i would like to welcome ms. rebekah brooks recently chief executive officer of the news international, and i would like to thank you for your willingness to come before the committee. we are very much aware there is an ongoing presentation which could lead to criminal proceedings. we also appreciate your steegmans when you resign from the company that you wanted to be as comfortable as possible to areas under way. can i just start today news international has a statement from july, 2009 saying
10:45pm
[inaudible] access to voicemail many private investigators also the systemic in the devotee by the news international. would you expect now those? >> thank you, mr. chairman. first, in answer to that question i would like to add my own personal apologies to the apology is james schenker rupert murdoch have made today. clearly, what happened at the news of the world and certainly when the obligations of the voice intercept we know that crime is pretty terrific and abhorrent so i just want to state to come in the answer questions today i a arrested and interview by the police a couple of days ago, so why have legal
10:46pm
representation here just so i don't impede those criminal exceeding switch to expect but i intend to do as openly as i can and i know you will [inaudible] >> we are grateful for that. so, if i could ask you to comment on whether or not you said that news would journalists -- were investigated to do so is actually not true? >> welcome again, as you have heard now the fact that since the cnn miller came into the position at the end of december, 2010, that was the first time that we as a senior management for the company at that time had
10:47pm
actually seen some documentary evidence and actually to a current employee. i think that we acted quickly and decisively. as you know, it was our evidence that opened up the police inquiry in 2011 in january, and since then we have admitted liability on the cases and as many as possible. we have appointed charles gray the victims of phone hacking and don't want to incur an expensive legal costs to be dealt with very swiftly. as you know, the corporate investor risk-taking the time and those cases aren't going to be heard until late january, 2012 with the compensation is there in order for people to come forward. so, of course there were
10:48pm
mistakes made, but i think and hope that you will agree since we saw the evidence at the end of december. >> so, until use of the evidence which was produced at the case you continued to believe news of the world who had been implicated? >> i think in 2,009 was the first time that all of us -- and i know some members of the time to the committee spent a lot of time on this looking at the whole sequence of events so i know you know it pretty well but to reiterate in 2009 when we heard what appeared in the guardian i think that's when information on raveled. but very slowly we have
10:49pm
conducted many internal investigations. i know you spent a lot of time talking to james and rupert murdoch about it, but we had been told by people the consistently denied any of these allegations in various internal investigations, and it is only when we saw the miller documentation that we realized that one of the problems of the case has been our respectability we've had a zero stability and part of the direct effect of this is because we only see it during the procedure and act accordingly. >> in that evidence you have said that you'd like to
10:50pm
[inaudible] >> i think unfortunately because of the criminal procedure i'm not sure that it's possible for me to infer guilt until the criminal procedures take place. >> there are many questions i would like to ask you but i won't be able to do it today because the criminal proceedings, so i will be narrow in my questions. why tom crone? >> what happened with tom crone is a very regreted decision after 168 years. tom crone has been a news of the world lawyer and within our legal manager the situation of the news of the world he spent most of his time in fact pretty much 99% of the time on the news of the world and the rest of the
10:51pm
companies and the titles had been appointed new lawyers and people most news of the world and he left. >> [inaudible] >> i'm sorry? >> some still dealing with the news of the world -- >> yes, the civil case is being dealt with by, like i said, the first one is the standards management committee that we set up and we've seen the announcement on that recently and i would go over it and i know that jason is going to talk about it but also who has been doing the civil case is we've got some test cases coming up before the judge in january when there are people dealing with it, but tom crone's role as it was a hands-on legal manager at the news of the world and we ought to close the paper. >> i missed it might murdoch says he advised.
10:52pm
>> how extensively did you have the private detectives? >> i think only some coming and when i was editor of the news of the world and i came before this committee just as i became the editor and in relation to the operation management i think there are extensive questions about the use of private detectives in the states and has cno the chart was published of which i can't remember whether the news of the world was on a i think it was fourth, leaving the sun as below take a break magazine but also the guardian, the news of the world, the daily mail -- >> can i just instruct i used to
10:53pm
work for [inaudible] >> just to answer my question you wrote private investigators; is the answer? >> i said the use of private detectives and the late 90's and in 2000 was, and after the operation for the st. previewed this factor and in may the use of private detectors. don't forget at the time as you were aware it was all about the data protection and the data protection act changes that which were made and that is why we had the committee in 2003. >> for the state of time how long did you write the detectives? >> of the news of the world and the detectives in places like meat street. >> were you left the payments to
10:54pm
the private detectives? >> i was aware of these were world news private detectives and under the notice, yes. stomach cancer you have payments to them? >> that's not what works. i was aware that we used them. >> who would attend a payment? >> the payment system in a newspaper which had been discussed at length is very simply the job is to require the overall budget for the paper from the senior management to be at once that budget is inquired it is given to the managing editor to do allocations in the different departments. each person in that department has a different level of authorization, the final payments are authorized by the managing editor on less there is a particularly [inaudible] or something that needs to be discussed on a wider level --
10:55pm
but not necessarily camano. we are talking years ago in many we have discussed payments i don't particularly remember. >> you don't remember what whether you would have discussed in the payments at all? >> i sit in relation to private detectives i was aware of the news of the world private detectives as every paper in fleet street is. >> the payments of those would have gone through the managing editors of there. [inaudible] >> i can't remember if we ever discussed the individual payments. >> you were elected in 2009 you said you did not recall. you appreciate to this as an answer under the circumstances that we require you to a specific response to the questions. did you ever have any contact directly or through others?
10:56pm
>> no, none whatsoever. >> would the secretary shall become from that? >> [inaudible] >> absolutely. >> did she hold your diary for the past 19 years? >> she may look after them, i don't know. estimate would be in a paper or electronic format? >> i did not meet him. estimate the diary is the electronic or paper for that? >> it was a paper format until recently. >> do you think he would deny that he ever met him? >> i'm sure also for the truth -- >> or you aware of the news group newspapers have in the registered world of the news? you didn't know what he did?
10:57pm
>> i didn't know particularly that she was one of the detectives that would use the world news, no. in fact i said in 2006. >> did you receive any information from the methods? >> to me? to me personally? >> did anyone bring you information on the matters? >> it is an entirely perfect question but i can only say i didn't know akers into tawes and six. there were other private investigators i did know about and had heard about but he wasn't one of them. >> now that you know what you know do you suspect they would receive on the basis? >> now that i know what i know it's that this is one of the difficulties.
10:58pm
i know quite an extensive amount now particularly the last six months of investigating the story, and glenn mulcaire i am aware wrote on and off in the news of the world i think in of late nineties and continued through until 2006 when he was arrested. so obviously, if he worked for the news of the world for that time, he was involved, and i think that the judge said in 2007, which again, we may disagree with that now, the judge did in 2,007 when he was convicted that he had a perfectly legitimate contract in the world for research and investigative work and said that i think quite repeatedly throughout the draft. so, that's all i can tell you.
10:59pm
[inaudible] >> again, a lot recently. i watched the program as we all do. he wasn't familiar with me. i told that he rejoined the news of the world in 2005, 2006, and he worked for news of the world and many other newspapers in the late 1990's. that's my information. >> did you find the census to received a criminal sentence he was then rehired by the paper. >> do you know who hired him? do you know who signed the contract? [inaudible] you did not find either? >> the investigation conducted in the last six months was